World Families Forums - R1b and Ancient Y-DNA Results

ARCHIVAL COPY

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.

I suspect the entry of R1b into Europe west of the Black Sea was some variation of the Kurgan idea and that it surfed a wave of advance, becoming far more populous at the forefront than it ever was or is now in its old homelands.

By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I don't have all the details worked out in my own thinking, but that is the rough outline of what I think probably occurred.

I agree that R1a is not a likely source of Indo-European for much of Europe. R1b is a far better candidate in many ways. I do think that IE clearly has two stories. There is the whole R1a story which seems to be important in the spread of IE to the east, into Asia and to a lesser extent the north-east of Europe. I think this does tell PART of the story but the problem is the whole Kurgan thing is too often portrayed as the whole of the story. If the mainstream idea that Anatolian is even older than proto-IE and perhaps ancestral to the latter (and Euphratic even older) then I think the origins probably lie with some movement that came to SE Europe from Anatolia. I cant see anything at all linguistically that is evidence of early forms of IE relating to the steppes.

Personally I suspect that the other half of the story of IE is the spread of dairy farmers west 5000-4000BC and its transformation of older farming areas in Europe and its role is setting of previously unsettled areas in the form of cultures like the TRB, isles early Neolithic etc. The spread of dairy farming in that period and its origins in Anatolia are at least scientific facts. If that happened then it would perhaps be phase 1 of the story and explain the archaic early split of nature of the centum languages. Then phase 2 could have been the effect of the dairy farmers who remained in SE Europe on their hunting neighbours (R1a?) in the steppes.

Another alternative more angled at metal working would be that R1b has an IE Mesopotamian origin and that it moved in jumps to the south urals (a peak for both M73 and early M269/L23) looking for copper and then L23 groups moved to the Caucuses and Anatolia for the same reason before entering SE Europe for the same reason searching for metal deposits (very early in the Balkans) and finally blazing a trail along the alps and other areas looking for arsenical copper ores (the best copper) and trailing on to the west in the form of beaker culture. This seems to tie in fairly well with R1b phylogeny and does fit to an extent with the Eurphratic-Anatolian-proto-IE-Centum sequence of language development and this would make R1b the donators not the receivers of IE. That kind of idea could see an early ancestors of IE stretching from Mesopotamia and the south Urals through Anatolia into SE Europe. It is interesting that both dairying and an early copper working tradition existed c. 5000BC in both Anatolia and various parts of SE Europe and there were connecting cultures too. However, the devil is in the detail and I would need to brush up on this copper age around the Black Sea and SW Asia stuff as I have kind of avoided it for a long time. Of course, again, such a model would peripheralise the steppes peoples proper from the oldest roots of IE.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that R1b was part of or came out of the Tripolye culture or Cucuteni-Tripolye cultures. I think those will be found to be a mix of G2a, I2a, and possibly E1b1b, like the other Neolithic sites tested thus far.

I am not sure what the right answer is, but I cannot see Tripolye as the source of the y-haplogroup that overspread Europe so rapidly and imposed IE languages on it.

Look at Tripolye. It was a big farming culture, apparently matriarchal and female-centered, apparently non-aggressive, giving the overall impression of a commune of plow-driving lotus-eaters.

I know Alan mentioned folks with icons of the Virgin Mary who were nevertheless very militaristic and aggressive, but that is comparing Christianity, which is, the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding, a patriarchal religion, to the mother goddess-worshiping, female-centered cult of the Tripolye folk. Very different things.

The Tripolye folk just didn't have it in them to sweep west and dominate a continent. I don't see it. Geographically and temporally Tripolye looks like a possibility, but it just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.

By about 2000 BC, as I recall reading (need to find the source), horseback riding and wheeled transport had overspread most of Europe, and PIE seems to have a close connection to those developments. R1a is too thin on the ground, it seems to me, to have been responsible.

I also think that current R1a levels north of the Black Sea are the result of more recent population movements rather than a continuity from earlier periods. Just like the Neolithic in Europe, we will probably see a much different genetic makeup of the population around the Black Sea in ancient times.

That could well be correct and if so would shake up the options again. I do wonder about that. If you look at Myres's maps R1a does look like it punched a hole in the R1b world, sort of interrupting the archaic R1b zone on the L23* and M73 maps from the L11 zone.

Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that. 5000 is plenty time. The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes. How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc. Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time.

For western Europe the beaker phase whatever its origin does represent a new level of widespread contact and networking. The only model I can really see for that is the beaker groups really very thoroughly explored the coasts and rivers and mountains of Europe looking for ore and also nodal points in the network of trade away from the ore sources. They may have actually originally been welcomed by the locals as supplying something that they desired. Perhaps this led to many little tribes have a small beaker settlement providing this service and forming part of a chain. Perhaps over time these beaker settlements (maybe we can look at them as trading and distribution posts as well as metalworking) came to be so wealthy that they overshadowed the native elites in prestige and slowly started to form a new elite. Given thousands of years elites can seriously grow as M222 shows in later times. Of course beakers were only the start of the process of Bronze Age elites whose wealth and prestige was based on metal, trade and materialism. The process continued throughout with the beaker networking splitting and going through various fissions and fusions into later tighter networks too.

Ireland is just one example but it is instructive. It seems 100% certain that beaker elements arrived exploring the metal resources and hit the jackpot with a high arsenic copper source at Ross Island in Kerry. They may also have found gold sources in Ulster and elsewhere. There is a suggestion that the Wedge tombs spread throughout the rocky west and other upland areas in central Ulster and elsewhere in pockets date to exactly this period and are frequently associated with beaker material. The earliest reliable RC dates in each tomb almost perfectly corresponds to the beaker phase c. 2400-c. 2000BC and the earliest stratigraphically sound primary finds are indeed beaker material. This definately smacks to me of an exploritory phase throughout the west and uplands elsewhere. I get the sense of a period where groups explored and settled the likely areas, apparently in a complimentary way to the natives whose lowlands in the east seem to lack much in the way of beaker burials. It is only in the following phase, the food vessel period, when it seems the two fused to form one culture with beaker traditions dominating as seem in the food vessel burial (especially the bowl tradition).

In this respect I think it differed from Britain because Ireland had something approaching a macro-divide whereas I get the impression that beakers settled as pockets throughout the native's heartlands (i.e. stonehenge for example) and must have often been middle men in the metal trade. The difference may simply be that western and upland Ireland really was a place where prospecting exploration was ongoing and successful while in lowland Britain (where most British beakers are) they had no metal sources (and the beaker settlers would have know that quickly) and so were essentially middle men for the elites. Irish metal dominated isles copper age arsenical copper and gold work, even extending to France etc. It was only a little later that tin etc came into play.

You could say that this was the origin of the difference of how beaker culture expressed itself in Ireland compared to Britain. Ireland was not in a geographically great location to redistribute beyond Britain and so you could say the focus was on the dirty hands aspect of actually getting the ore and turning it into objects while Britain on its southern and eastern coasts facing the continent (where most British beaker is) may have been an ideal location for beaker people to get very wealthy as middlemen controlling the flow of Irish metal through Britain and over to the continent etc. The dynamics of this would change over time as tin was discovered and new copper mines opened but the same pattern probably continued to some degree into the Wessex-Armorican-Unetice period etc and well beyond. Again it is noticeable that while Ireland produces a wealth of metalwork it lacked the wealthy graves in the Beaker period and in the subsequent Wessex type periods and that again may be down to geography. Other than Britain, Ireland is a long way from anywhere else other than perhaps NW France. Britain on the other hand has a long south and south-east coast that is close to the continent and ideal for trading without further middlemen.

If early R1b cremated or left their dead to the elements couldn't that go along way to explaining it's absence in ancient graves?On the Mesolithic/Neolithic according to Niel Oliver the Neolithic farmers ventured inland but the Mesolithic populated the coastal areas ie not in each others way. Fishing seems to be very important to the Mesolithic people. I wonder if they turned sea produce into an 'industry ?' i.e. formed larger settlements with the neolithic peoples. Maybe there might be some traces of Mesolithic y-dna in areas of fishing. Fishing is a male dominated industry and in Britain and Ireland it's a family thing.Having said that Fishermen are probably all vikings lol(?)

If early R1b cremated or left their dead to the elements couldn't that go along way to explaining it's absence in ancient graves?On the Mesolithic/Neolithic according to Niel Oliver the Neolithic farmers ventured inland but the Mesolithic populated the coastal areas ie not in each others way. Fishing seems to be very important to the Mesolithic people. I wonder if they turned sea produce into an 'industry ?' i.e. formed larger settlements with the neolithic peoples. Maybe there might be some traces of Mesolithic y-dna in areas of fishing. Fishing is a male dominated industry and in Britain and Ireland it's a family thing.Having said that Fishermen are probably all vikings lol(?)

cremation is going to cause some limitations to what ancient DNA is going to ever be available. The only actual deliberate pre-Neolithic burials ever found in Ireland were cremations, so that is the period 8000BC-4000BC unlikely to ever produce much ancient DNA (there is the odd stray bone). In the Neolithic c. 4000-2500BC there was a mix of cremation (predominant) and inhumation in Ireland. Problematically inhumations tend to be disarticulated and multi-phase meaning the age of any given piece of bone may be unknown unless it is also radiocarbondated. There was a period where inhumation again appeared c. 2100BC for a couple of centuries with food vessel burials but then it was pretty well exclusively cremation in the mid and late Bronze Age and all of the BC part of the Iron Age (c. 1800BC-c. 0BC/AD). So there are huge periods in the Irish burial record where there is very little hope of much in the way of ancient DNA due to the predominance of cremation. However, Irelands love of cremation in prehistory seems to be a little unusual and the problem is nowhere near as bad in most countries (even Britain had far less use of cremation than Ireland).

I understand some of the Mesolithic people in Brittany actually buried their dead in the shell middens.

That's an overwhelmingly R1b area. If R1b doesn't turn up in any of those Mesolithic remains, then perhaps it wasn't there then.

I think it is only natural that the older the remains are, the scarcer they will be, as well.

There are only certain areas where you really get much in the way of systematic pre-farming burial in western Europe. The Breton shell midden ones and the Ertebole of Scandinavia are the ones that quickly spring to mind. One issue though for using Breton ones as a proxy is that there is very little evidence of the use of the Atlantic route from the continent in the Mesolithic other than perhaps very late on. You could basically walk into Britain from the south-east and even Ireland was only a very short crossing from western Britain. Culturally the Maglemosian early Mesolithic of England is usually thought to link to the north European plain and its also true that the sightly later narrow blade Mesolithic (the first Mesolithic in much of Scotland and Ireland) has its earliest dates in the east of Scotland, suggesting again an eastern entry. So, the isles may have been settled by hunters who didnt ever go anywhere near the French Atlantic area. France was probably a little more important in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain than the Mesolithic.

Have academics attempted to test ancient remains from West Asia? I know there are more difficulties, particularly for Y-DNA, given the environment, but, I wish folks with the resources and necessary expertise, would attempt extracting aDNA from the countless "Sumerian" remains excavated during the 20th century. If King Tut is in fact R-M269, it is not far-fetched to imagine finding some form of R1b among the remains. Even if we do not consider King Tut's speculative results, the same holds true.

Quote

The cemetery was originally dug outside the walls of the city of Ur...Some 1,840 burials were found, dating to between 2600 BC and 2000 BC. They ranged from simple burials (with a body rolled in a mat) to elaborate burials in domed tombs reached by descending ramps. Sixteen of the early burials [Charles Leonard] Woolley called 'Royal Graves' because of the rich grave-goods, the presence of burial chambers, and the bodies of the attendants who had apparently been sacrificed.

Have academics attempted to test ancient remains from West Asia? I know there are more difficulties, particularly for Y-DNA, given the environment, but, I wish folks with the resources and necessary expertise, would attempt extracting aDNA from the countless "Sumerian" remains excavated during the 20th century. If King Tut is in fact R-M269, it is not far-fetched to imagine finding some form of R1b among the remains. Even if we do not consider King Tut's speculative results, the same holds true.

Quote

The cemetery was originally dug outside the walls of the city of Ur...Some 1,840 burials were found, dating to between 2600 BC and 2000 BC. They ranged from simple burials (with a body rolled in a mat) to elaborate burials in domed tombs reached by descending ramps. Sixteen of the early burials [Charles Leonard] Woolley called 'Royal Graves' because of the rich grave-goods, the presence of burial chambers, and the bodies of the attendants who had apparently been sacrificed.

If, and it's a big If, King Tut is R1b of any sort then maybe it shouldn't turn out to be such a big surprise if there's a connection to the Hittites. The time frame seems just about right. I would venture to guess R1b's presence in Europe would have been quite minimal at this time. Being that the oldest finds of R1b only point to the Bronze Age in Germany. I just wish we could find ancient DNA from the Hittites and from the region of Wilusa aka Troy. We should expect to see Neolithic R1b somewhere in the Anatolia and Caucasus region. So far nothing.

Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles in France, Derenburg in Germany, and in Spain have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi, the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?

I think it's been solidified that R1b was NOT in Europe prior to the Bronze Age. This is a group that originated in Anatolia or the Caucasus region. My mind for some reason wants to push it towards Armenia and near Karahunj. If we are finding Neolithic type DNA from other haplogroups in Western Europe, with the only a Bronze Age finding of R1b in Germany, then we should expect Mesolithic or Neolithic R1b in Anatolia or the Caucasus. So far I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of ancient R1b DNA anywhere in the Mesolithic or Neolithic; kind of odd for an HG that is 18ky old. You would expect to find it somewhere; especially in Anatolia.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's been solidly proven that R1b wasn't in Europe prior to the Bronze Age. We have less than a handful of aDNA y-dna results. A Mesolithic R1b find could pop anytime and surprise us all.

Of course, "R1b", at least the way I am using it, is shorthand or code for whatever subclade of R1b was current during whatever time period an aDNA discovery is dated to. I wasn't really talking about R1b in the literal M343 sense or in the R1b1a2/M269 sense. It doesn't seem likely either of those will ever be found in Europe.

Thus far, the oldest R1b in Europe that we know about is a single R1b individual from the Lichtenstein Cave discovery, circa 1,000 BC. That's Bronze Age.

Next in age come the bodies from the Aldaieta cemetery in the Basque country in Spain, but they date only from the early medieval period (6th century).

The bodies of the warriors in chain mail in the cave in Ergolding in Bavaria are from the 7th century.

That's it: one Bronze Age R1b, then nothing until the 6th and 7th centuries A.D.

Ancient y-dna results recently obtained from Neolithic sites at Treilles in France, Derenburg in Germany, and in Spain have included G2a, I2a, F*, and E1b1b, but NO R1b. Of course, Ötzi, the famous "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps, is G2a4.

G2a seems to be the common denominator in all of these recent discoveries. Not only is Ötzi G2a4, but G2a was recovered from remains at all three of the other sites mentioned above. I2a was recovered at Treilles, F* at Derenburg, and E1b1b in Spain.

As it is famously said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but where is the R1b? One would think that the single most common y haplogroup in modern Europe would have shown up in at least one of these sites, if R1b was present in Neolithic Europe.

Of course, ancient y-dna results are still scarce, and some Neolithic, Mesolithic or perhaps even Paleolithic European R1b could turn up tomorrow.

Does anyone here think that is likely, that R1b was actually in Europe prior to the Bronze Age and that what we have seen thus far with ancient y-dna is misleading us?

I think it's been solidified that R1b was NOT in Europe prior to the Bronze Age. This is a group that originated in Anatolia or the Caucasus region. My mind for some reason wants to push it towards Armenia and near Karahunj. If we are finding Neolithic type DNA from other haplogroups in Western Europe, with the only a Bronze Age finding of R1b in Germany, then we should expect Mesolithic or Neolithic R1b in Anatolia or the Caucasus. So far I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of ancient R1b DNA anywhere in the Mesolithic or Neolithic; kind of odd for an HG that is 18ky old. You would expect to find it somewhere; especially in Anatolia.

Arch

The sample is incredibly small at the moment and only capable of providing positive evidence of presence. It is worthless in terms of providing solid negative evidence for absence at present. For example the 4000 year period 7000BC-3000BC for the whole of southern Europe and Asia Minor is represented by three sites where remains have been sampled for ancient DNA. Four millenia in half a continent represented by three sites is beyond useless for negative evidence.

Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that. 5000 is plenty time. The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes. How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc. Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time............

If it did arrive late, then it would seem it must have arrived in force. If, as seems likely, R1b is associated with the arrival of IE in Europe, the ancient heroic traditions and burials seem to point to a highly martial culture. Assuming the high rates of lactase persistance found in the northern and western fringes of Europe are remnants of this same wave, then might this tell part of the story? The greatest challenge of armies on the move is usually logistical, specifically the maintenance of supply lines for victualing, etc.. But, what if there were no need for a supply line? A mounted lactose-tolerant army driving its own cattle could be larger, more mobile, and more self-sufficient than an army requiring local provisioning or a long supply train. I think metal was probably the draw west, first copper, then especially tin once its value in bronzemaking was fully realized. Horse and cart provided mobility in advance, and large herds of cattle could victual large armies and remove limits on the range of operations away from provisioning sources.

Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that. 5000 is plenty time. The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes. How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc. Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time............

If it did arrive late, then it would seem it must have arrived in force. If, as seems likely, R1b is associated with the arrival of IE in Europe, the ancient heroic traditions and burials seem to point to a highly martial culture. Assuming the high rates of lactase persistance found in the northern and western fringes of Europe are remnants of this same wave, then might this tell part of the story? The greatest challenge of armies on the move is usually logistical, specifically the maintenance of supply lines for victualing, etc.. But, what if there were no need for a supply line? A mounted lactose-tolerant army driving its own cattle could be larger, more mobile, and more self-sufficient than an army requiring local provisioning or a long supply train. I think metal was probably the draw west, first copper, then especially tin once its value in bronzemaking was fully realized. Horse and cart provided mobility in advance, and large herds of cattle could victual large armies and remove limits on the range of operations away from provisioning sources.

Makes sense to me at least. At least until tomorrow.

Makes sense to me too. And it probably still will tomorrow morning.

Welcome back. I thought you might have been kidnapped by aliens and taken to a distant planet.

Something I mentioned before but think should be stressed again is that a y-haplogroup like R1b, under the right set of circumstances, can achieve numerical dominance in a very short amount of time.

It's just my opinion, but I think we need to get away from the idea that because R1b is so prevalent in Europe today it must have been there a long long time. That sort of thinking is a big part of what led to the old "Paleolithic R1b" theory.

The Bronze Age began about 5,000 years ago in Europe. That is plenty of time for R-L23 to have entered Europe and its descendants to have spread and become dominant.

I cant disagree with that. 5000 is plenty time. The real mystery is how it managed to become so big in so many different areas, presumably across many cultures and even more tribes. How did it come to dominate in every little corner from Alpine valleys to little tiny islands off the Scottish coast etc. Its finding a mechanism for the way it (at whatever pace) it managed to dominate every little corner of western Europe again and again, the same haplogroup coming up trumps every time............

If it did arrive late, then it would seem it must have arrived in force. If, as seems likely, R1b is associated with the arrival of IE in Europe, the ancient heroic traditions and burials seem to point to a highly martial culture. Assuming the high rates of lactase persistance found in the northern and western fringes of Europe are remnants of this same wave, then might this tell part of the story? The greatest challenge of armies on the move is usually logistical, specifically the maintenance of supply lines for victualing, etc.. But, what if there were no need for a supply line? A mounted lactose-tolerant army driving its own cattle could be larger, more mobile, and more self-sufficient than an army requiring local provisioning or a long supply train. I think metal was probably the draw west, first copper, then especially tin once its value in bronzemaking was fully realized. Horse and cart provided mobility in advance, and large herds of cattle could victual large armies and remove limits on the range of operations away from provisioning sources.

The sample is incredibly small at the moment and only capable of providing positive evidence of presence. It is worthless in terms of providing solid negative evidence for absence at present. For example the 4000 year period 7000BC-3000BC for the whole of southern Europe and Asia Minor is represented by three sites where remains have been sampled for ancient DNA. Four millenia in half a continent represented by three sites is beyond useless for negative evidence.

I like to play the naysayer role when it comes to ancient DNA. I do think it is important, but only as additional evidence.

As you cite, the sample is incredibly small and is not of much use for provide evidence of absence (of R1b for example.)

The same issue will probably cause inconclusive propositions even for positive results. We are seeing this discussion right not for E-V13. It is found in Neolithic Iberia, however, one contention is: So what? that E-V13 currently found in Iberia is of a different set of lineages and still may have primarily come from some place east at a later date.

The positive evidence depends on what it is. There is a big difference between finding an R-M343+ L23- person in Iberia in a Neolithic grave versus an M222+ person.

All the theories they have had in these years are wrecked: the Mutation Rate, the knowledge of cultivated persons like Nordtvedt, Klyosov etc. Now the same Klyosov, who has written a lot about this (an impressive waste of time), is updating his theories, but if you read attentively them, they are above all my “mutations around the modal”, my “convergence to the modal as time passes”, etc. What does it mean his discriminating the haplotypes and to say that the most part of the ancient ones fell extinct?

What Klyosov says is inconsistent and to say that the E-V13 found in Spain is from elsewhere respect the E-V13 of to-day only an escamotage.

I saw the discussion about E-V13 at Rootsweb. I say "saw" because I cannot claim to have read all the posts.

As I recall, a popular theory about E-V13 is that it expanded in the Bronze Age, either from Anatolia or from some place in the Balkans north of Greece. Finding it in Neolithic Spain hasn't done that theory any favors. The Bronze Age expansion story could still be true, after a fashion, but it certainly seems unlikely.

Similarly, a few years ago, and, I think, up until quite recently, the story on G2a in Europe was that it represented descent from the Sarmatians. Personally, I always thought that one more than a little far fetched, but a lot of people bought it. Unless Ötzi was a Sarmatian, and unless the recent Neolithic G2a finds were also Sarmatians (I am being facetious here - there were no Sarmatians that long ago), the theory that G2a in Europe can be attributed to the Sarmatians is a bust.

The Sarmatians seem to be popular dream catchers. I have read claims that the J1 in Spain is to be held to their account. Apparently the Sarmatians specialized in depositing odd patches of y-dna here and there across Europe.

Of course, the Indo-Europeans, if such a people ever actually existed, are dream catchers, too. A very early R1b find could cause them to dematerialize tomorrow.

What Klyosov says is inconsistent and to say that the E-V13 found in Spain is from elsewhere respect the E-V13 of to-day only an escamotage.

I haven't been following that and he could be inconsistent, but that does not mean it is not well within the possibilities that E-V13 in Neolithic Spain is not any closer related to the bulk of E-V13 in modern Spain than 3, 4 or 5 thousand years. Surely you think there could be different sublineages developed from the original E-V13 folks with different migration paths. Does anyone think all of R1b had the same migration path and expansion? Well, maybe you do.

wasn't there a population crash at the end of the 'international bronze age' as Neal Oliver calls it followed by the 'localized iron age'. Could that explain any thing if the lactose persistence is linked to R1b it could. Maybe the social restructuring itself had an impact on the proportion of different DNA types .

Western Norway had a maritime connection as seen in Bronze Age (and older)stone carvings.They had ships back then. Where do you suppose they were sailing to, in these ships?Or were they coming from someplace else leaving their marks in stone in Norway?

"The dominating motifs are ships and cup marks; there are also footprints, rings, anthropomorphicrepresentations, a chariot, and various geometric motifs. Two small panels have cup marks only.Natural lines and crevices are sometimes incorporated into the carvings, e.g. at Unneset 7, where acrack in the rock surface forms the keel of a boat. The majority of the rock art is dated to the middleof the Bronze Age; however, some boats are dated to the Early Bronze Age (Mandt 1991; Wrigglesworth2000, 2002). The close proximity to the sea and the fact that the majority of the carvings depict boatscan be seen as a maritime rock art tradition in this area." (pg.253)http://www.ugr.es/~a...DF4/Melanie.pdf

Even though it is not official, I think King Tutankhamun is the oldest ancient DNA.

Robert Tarin posted this at Rootsweb today. I think there is a little added credibility in that Thomas Krahn gave Robert his opinion.

Quote from: Robert Tarin

When all of this first began, I had a private exchange of email with Thomas Krahn of FTDNA and it was determined that those were not dual peaks. Therefore the values for DYS19 and DYS437 both are 14. You can see the haplotype posted on Ysearch by several persons......I believe the posting by Ysearch UH2BK has the same values I came up with.

Something else that I have not seen discussed after I mentioned it, was that the CODIS markers for Tutankhamun listed in the published study, when run in the OmniPop program, indicate similarity with Europeans.